In this week's 3-2-1 Column, we're talking about Pitt spring camp, roster moves and why we're feeling bad for Jeff Capel.

THREE THINGS WE KNOW

The same things again and again
I almost kind of feel bad for Jeff Capel at this point.

I’m not just talking about the losing; that’s part of the deal when you become a coach. You know that there will be wins and losses, and while the losses never stop stinging, it’s just inevitable that you’ll have to deal with them.

Rather, I’m talking about talking about the losing. That’s where I’m feeling some sympathy for Capel. Yes, addressing the media is part of the job description, and while some coaches seem to view it as a toxic situation - and thus cause it to be one - it’s really not that taxing.

We ask questions, some good and some bad, and coaches answer, some good and some bad. There are time when it’s robotic and insincere and other times when coaches really give some honest, candid responses that shed light on their team.

It’s all part of the job on both sides of the podium.

But lately, I’ve been feeling bad for Capel because, in addition to the losing, he has to go out and talk about the losses and somehow try to find something different to say about each loss, even though the realities don’t really change.

Pitt’s losing because the roster’s most talented players are also its youngest players. Because there aren’t enough good shooting options around the perimeter. Because there is no consistent post presence. Because the freshmen don’t have any real support around them. Because the freshmen themselves are talented but sloppy.

The Panthers are losing because once things start going the wrong way, they let it get out of hand before they settle down and get competitive again.

They lose because the roster has been decimated over the last five years and the early stages of a rebuild can get ugly.

In not so many words - but sometimes in those exact words - Capel has told us all of that. And, it seems, he has told us all of those things every single night.

Game to game throughout this 11-game losing streak, Pitt’s struggles have been consistent. There may be a new wrinkle - Missed free throws! Failed box-out at the free throw line! Opponents can’t miss for the first 10 minutes of the game! - but there really haven’t been any surprises. The Panthers are losing games now the same way they lost in December, whether it was the sluggish start (sound familiar?) at Iowa or the turnover-fest (sound familiar?) at West Virginia.

They are who they are, to spin a quote I’ve never cared all that much for since it seems kind of…defeatist to me. But there’s truth in it: while we all thought there would be growth in this roster over the course of the season - and whether or not enough growth has happened is up for debate - we never really had a reason to believe that the core, fundamental issues with this roster could be overcome with consistency.

The freshmen gave us some hope early in the ACC schedule. They created some belief that maybe they could be good enough to mask those other issues. And maybe they still can be (not this Saturday at Virginia, but maybe at Miami and in the regular-season finale against Notre Dame).

But in the end, they’re still who they are, and that’s basically what Capel has had to remind us of every time he steps to the microphone. Like this quote from Wednesday night after the loss to Clemson at the Petersen Events Center. Capel was asked about the impact of having six days off prior to hosting the Tigers.

“I don’t know. I mean, we didn’t play well tonight, so obviously it had a negative impact. We didn’t play well. That’s the bottom line. I don’t know if that had to do with the six days in between games, in between our last game, or what. The bottom line is that we didn’t play well and we’ll figure it out and try to be better the next time we play.”

That’s the bottom line, and Capel has had to say it every night. After 28 games, he’s probably ready to move on to a new topic.

Maybe it will work out this time
Pitt has had mixed results with graduate transfers in the past. Stefano Millin worked out really well for the Panthers, starting 14 games at left tackle and playing reasonably well in the process. And Nate Peterman turned out to be okay for two years.

Otherwise, I can’t say Pitt has gained much from the process, and that’s not for lack of trying. Mark Scarpinato back in 2015 was technically a grad transfer, although he came from Michigan State after retiring from football; he didn’t do much. In 2017, Pitt added three grad transfers: quarterback Max Browne, tight end Matt Flanagan and offensive lineman Brandon Hodges.

Like so many elements of that season, things fell apart for those three. Browne and Flanagan were limited by injuries (among other factors) and Hodges could never cement himself in the starting lineup.

Last year, Pitt got Millin and Will Gragg arrived as a grad transfer tight end from Arkansas. Like I said, Millin did well, but Gragg caught all of five passes, despite being seen as a pass-catching option in an offense that needed more from the tight end position.

If my math is right, that’s seven graduate transfers and a solid return on exactly two of them (I still think Browne was finding his groove when he got hurt at Syracuse in 2017; if not for that injury, I think Pitt could have made a bowl game and he would be on this list).

Enter Nakia Griffin-Stewart and Nolan Ulizio, this year’s incoming grad transfers. Griffin-Stewart is a tight end from Rutgers; Ulizio is an offensive lineman from Michigan. Both are the third players at their position to come to Pitt as a grad transfer (six of the nine grad transfers have been tight ends and offensive linemen) and both will be expected to step into competition for a starting job.

There are openings for both guys, to be sure. Pitt is replacing four of the five starters on the offensive line, so Ulizio will battle at right tackle. And while the Panthers return four scholarship tight ends from last season and will add a freshman at the position this summer, there’s hardly a proven commodity in the group, so that one’s full of opportunity, too.

But there were opportunities for Hodges and Flanagan and Gragg, too, weren’t there? Maybe it’s not fair to include Flanagan in that broad indictment; he was at the mercy of the offensive coordinator and quarterback situation and then had his season cut short by injury, but still…

Ulizio and Griffin-Stewart are being brought in because the Pitt coaches feel like they need help at those positions, and they’re right: they do need an experienced player at tackle and another body to compete at tight end.

At this point, though, I’m not sure what to expect out of those guys. Neither one lit the world on fire at their previous spots. Put it on the situation or opportunity or whatever, but they didn’t do a lot in the Big Ten. That doesn’t mean they won’t do anything at Pitt, but I’m leaning toward the ol’ wait-and-see.

Whipple will let the players decide
Hopefully you got a chance to hear my interview earlier this week with Adam Breneman. He joined me on the Monday podcast because, in my view, he’s got a really unique and worthwhile perspective on Pitt’s new offensive coordinator, Mark Whipple.

Breneman, as you might recall, was a four-star prospect in the class of 2013. He signed with Bill O’Brien and played a year for him before he went to the NFL. After spending a little more time in State College but dealing with injury issues, Breneman decided to hang up the cleats.

Long story short, they didn’t stay hung up for long. He was friends with Whipple’s son when they were both at Penn State, and soon that turned into a connection with the elder Whipple, who convinced Breneman to come out of “retirement” and play at UMass, where he was the head coach.

Breneman decided to give it a go, and it couldn’t have worked out better. In two seasons, he caught 134 passes and scored 12 touchdowns. He made a number of All-America second teams nationally and was UMass’ leading receiver in 2016.

Simply put, Whipple got him the ball, and he did it in a lot of ways.

That’s encouraging on its face as an endorsement of Whipple’s usage of the tight end. Pitt fans have clamored for more from that position over the last two years when, for a variety of reasons, the tight ends didn’t do a whole lot.

But it’s not just about highlighting that one position. Because if you take Breneman’s performance out of the vacuum and look at it in comparison to the next season - this past year, 2018 - you see something else about Whipple’s offense:

He’s putting the ball in the hands of the playmakers. That’s the top goal.

So when Breneman was one of the Minutemen’s top playmakers, he caught the ball 134 times over two seasons. This past year, with Breneman gone, Whipple put the focus fully on receiver Andy Isabella, who caught 102 passes for 1,698 yards and 13 touchdowns.

And the tight ends, who were considerably less talented than Breneman, were hardly used in the offense at all.

This is the key: Whipple identified the playmakers and used them early and often. When Breneman was there, he caught a ton of passes and Isabella topped 60 or so. Once Breneman was gone, Isabella’s workload went up. Whipple didn’t keep forcing the ball to the tight ends; he adjusted and got more out of the playmakers he had left.

In our conversation, Breneman stressed that Whipple did a great job moving him and Isabella around to get them touches in as many ways as possible. That’s going to be key, too; I think Taysir Mack and Maurice Ffrench are the primary playmakers in this Pitt offense - certainly in the passing game - and every opponent will know they need to stop those two guys, so Whipple will need to find unique ways to get the ball to them.

TWO QUESTIONS

Have things improved?
As I prepared to tape a podcast a week or two ago, I solicited questions on Twitter. That’s always an interesting endeavor, but generally speaking, the results were pretty productive and led to some good discussion topics on the podcast.

One question, though, didn’t make the podcast. Basically, someone asked for “concrete metrics” that show whether or not the Pitt football program is better after four years with Pat Narduzzi than it was in the previous four years. When pressed for what constituted “concrete metrics,” the suggestion made in reply was to consult the S&P+ rankings, an ordering system in college football that is based on things like efficiency, explosiveness, field position and finishing drives.

While I would first look at overall wins and losses - Narduzzi is 28-24 over four seasons; Pitt went 25-27 in the previous four years - S&P+ is generally well-regarded and accepted, and I thought I’d look into it. So I crunched numbers on Pitt 2011-14 and Pitt 2015-18 and how those teams performed against opponents ranked 1-25, 26-50, 51-100 and outside the top 100 in S&P+ each year.

The results didn’t hammer home a clear and concise answer, but they’re interesting to consider.

I think there are some interesting things to parse from that, and I think they largely favor Narduzzi. He obviously has more wins against the top 25 and top 50 (the same number of wins between 26 and 50 in fewer games). Both eras each have one loss outside the top 75, but while Narduzzi’s loss to North Carolina this past season stings - the Tar Heels were No. 88 in 2018 - Paul Chryst’s loss at home to No. 101 Akron in 2014 is far worse.

When you get into that 51-75 range, though, there’s some clear separation. Chryst and his predecessor, Todd Graham, went 6-9 against those teams; Narduzzi is 7-3, with those three losses coming from Northwestern in the Pinstripe Bowl and then Syracuse and North Carolina in 2017, easily Narduzzi’s worst season.

I say “easily Narduzzi’s worst season,” but here’s where the S&P+ gets interesting: in terms of that rankings metric, 2018 actually ranked lower than 2017. In 2017, when Pitt went 5-7 and won just three conference games, the Panthers finished No. 47; this past season, with a .500 record that included the ACC Coastal Division title, Pitt finished No. 61.

There are a lot of factors that go into that, of course. The win over Miami in 2017 stands as Pitt’s third-best win in the S&P+ rankings from the last eight years, trailing only 2016’s wins over Penn State (No. 11) and Clemson (No. 2). But even there, things get wonky, because that 2016 team which posted two top-15 wins and only one loss outside the top 25, finished No. 23; the 6-7 team from 2014 that lost to Akron at home finished No. 26.

So maybe I don’t fully understand the S&P+ rankings. But it doesn’t look good when 2018, Year Four of the Narduzzi era, checks in lower in that metric than any other Pitt team of the last eight years (I’m only going back eight so we can compare four-year periods).

As with anything, it’s really how you choose to look at it. Narduzzi has more wins against top-25 teams and a better record against teams in the top 50, top 75 and top 100. He has also faced a tougher schedule (in the last four years, Pitt has played 17 opponents ranked in the top 25; the previous four seasons saw just five opponents in that ranking range).

I’ll say this: if nothing else, Narduzzi has cut down on the bad losses. Yes, North Carolina continues to be an issue. And yes, there were far too many blowouts last season. But he has just four losses outside the top 50 in the last four seasons; his predecessors lost 10 games to those opponents.

So there’s that.

Is anyone really under pressure?
In the first of our spring camp preview articles this week, I wrote about players who will be feeling the heat in camp - which guys are under pressure to perform?

I picked some obvious candidates, like redshirt seniors facing their last chances to win a starting job. The quarterback coming off a rough season is a good option, too; I don’t necessarily think he’ll lose his job, but he should probably step it up a bit.

As I’ve reflected on that piece, though, I’ve found myself asking whether anybody is really under that kind of pressure. Sure, those redshirt seniors need to take advantage of every rep they get since this is their last spring camps; there’s no doubt about that. But the reality is, even if one of those guys bombs out this spring, he’ll still have a chance to win a job in August.

That’s not to say spring camp doesn’t matter, but…well…I don’t know how to say this but…

It kind of doesn’t matter.

It’s spring camp. Beano Cook used to have a classic line about the fallacy of using spring camp to evaluate your team, but this is a family column, so I’ll refrain from repeating it here. Suffice to say, the Pope of college football didn’t put a lot of stock in it.

Just consider some former winners of the Ed Conway Award, which is presented each year to the most improved players of spring. Sure, there are guys like Connor Dintino, who won it last year on offense and then started all 14 games. But for every one of those, there’s last year’s other winner: Anthony McKee, who played in eight games and made 14 tackles and one sack - with most of those tackles coming on special teams and that one sack coming in the opener against Albany.

(The classic Conway Award cautionary tale is Pat Bostick, who won it in the spring of 2009 and proceeded to redshirt that season.)

My point is that spring performance doesn’t always carry over to fall production, and the guys who work their way up the depth chart in the spring don’t necessarily stay there in the summer. The two-deep will be determined by the way players practice in August training camp, pretty much regardless of what happens over the next six weeks.

So yes, anybody entering the twilight of their Pitt careers needs to recognize the urgency of the moment. But if they don’t, they’ll get another shot at it five months from now.

JUST ONE MORE THING…

The upperclassmen
We talked about redshirt seniors, and as I was considering that topic, I looked at the Scholarship Board and realized some things.

Namely, I realized that a bunch of fifth-year players aren’t exactly locks for the starting lineup. In fact, I would say that maybe half of the redshirt seniors on the roster will be starters, or at least look like they’ll position themselves to be starters, and that number may be on the high side.

We currently project 10 redshirt seniors for the 2019 roster - although that number could potentially shrink as we get closer to spring camp - and of those 10, I see maybe four guys who will, by my estimation, enter spring camp at the top of the depth chart.

Dane Jackson will obviously be a starter at cornerback, and I think Saleem Brightwell should be the first-team Money linebacker, since he’s got more experience than any other linebacker on the roster. And then I think the two transfers - Nolan Ulizio and Nakia Griffin-Stewart - will be starters, although actually I shouldn’t count either guy since they won’t be here this spring.

But that’s about it. The rest of the redshirt seniors will battle for playing time, and most of them should see a fair amount (some might see very little, though). But when you’re only reasonably confident about four redshirt seniors making the starting lineup and two of those are graduate transfers…

I guess one thing we could look at is where those redshirt seniors are coming from. Fifth-year players would have been recruited to Pitt in the class of 2015. That was the first class Pat Narduzzi signed and it included 15 recruits. Two of those were junior-college transfers, so they were never going to make it to 2019 anyway. Two left early for the NFL - Jordan Whitehead and Quadree Henderson - plus Darrin Hall never redshirted, so he used up his eligibility.

But there are a bunch of guys in that class whose contributions were minimal. Gentry Ivery, Tony Pilato, Alex Paulina, Malik Henderson and Anthony McKee left without ever playing meaningful snaps and Ben DiNucci left after a partial season as the starting quarterback. That’s more than a third of the class; add in - or subtract, as it were - the JUCO’s and NFL early-entrants and Hall, and that’s 11 of the 15 who signed but didn’t make it five years.

And that’s how you end up with nine redshirt seniors, of which three are grad transfers, one is a former walk-on who went on scholarship and a fifth came as a JUCO transfer.

The 2015 recruiting class was what we call a “transition class,” and the attrition rates are always going to be a little higher in those situations. But getting only 1/3 of the class through to a fifth year seems like a pretty rough number.